It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
Neil, they can do what they want.
No, they cant. Taxes arent optional. Your suggestion that they should not be allowed a say on those taxes that they have to pay is ridiculous. Which is probably why you cant justify it.
So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.
On the other hand, why should MPs representing a country on its way out have any say at all in long-term decisions of the UK government, such as (for example) HS2, new airport capacity, fracking, planning policy, immigration policy, the UK's relationship with the rest of the EU, and negotiations with Scotland on their exit? Not to mention the existing scandal of the West Lothian Question in relation to the NHS and Education.
Cameron chickened out of dealing with the WLQ so you only have yourselves to blame for that dogs' breakfast.
Well, quite. The SNP already know far better than to vote on 'English' matters where those are truly English - and I think they can be relied on to carry this on. I recall that Mr Mundell the solitary Tory MP in Scotland also abstains on appropriate occasions. It's Labour (and the LDs) for whom this is an issue, and I see that one other poster also uses this qualification.
They can carry on paying exactly the same taxes until they legislate differently and the 'English' Parliament could take that into account in the first budget after the GE.
Scots MPs would have no legitimacy, the rest is just quibbling.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
Neil, they can do what they want.
No, they cant. Taxes arent optional. Your suggestion that they should not be allowed a say on those taxes that they have to pay is ridiculous. Which is probably why you cant justify it.
Swissbob seems to be under the impression that Scotland becomes independent on 19th September rather than at the point of the passing of Act of Separation (or date contained within) at Westminster.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
Neil, they can do what they want.
No, they cant. Taxes arent optional. Your suggestion that they should not be allowed a say on those taxes that they have to pay is ridiculous. Which is probably why you cant justify it.
Swissbob seems to be under the impression that Scotland becomes independent on 19th September rather than at the point of the passing of Act of Separation (or date contained within) at Westminster.
Poor show. Of course I understand the situation. It is my opinion that Scots MPs will be illegitimate after a 'Yes' vote.
They can carry on paying exactly the same taxes until they legislate differently
Well, you at least seem to accept that they have a right to legislate for the taxes that their constituents have to pay. Might be too much to expect you to join all the dots together but it's progress.
According to Jennifer Williams from Manchester Evening News Labour shortlist for Heywood and Middleton is:
Mariam O'Reilly (former BBC presenter, shortlisted for Nuneaton) Byron Taylor (TULO National Officer, longlisted for Stoke Central in 2010 but NEC didn't shortlist him) Liz McInnes (Rossendale Cllr) Kailash Chand (GP from Tameside, shortlisted for Stalybridgeand Hyde before 2010 GE)
Selection tomorrow (brought forward by 1 day compared to original timetable)
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
You sound like you're in a total panic as reality slowly dawns as you realise what some 35% of Scottish Labour voters may be about to do to Labour in the rUK. The whole situation would be so funny if it wasn't for the fact that millions of ordinary folk in the whole of the UK face possibly years of economic hardship to satisfy the ego of one Scottish demagogue and the inane anti-tory prejudices of so many Scots Labour supporters.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
Neil, they can do what they want.
No, they cant. Taxes arent optional. Your suggestion that they should not be allowed a say on those taxes that they have to pay is ridiculous. Which is probably why you cant justify it.
Swissbob seems to be under the impression that Scotland becomes independent on 19th September rather than at the point of the passing of Act of Separation (or date contained within) at Westminster.
Poor show. Of course I understand the situation. It is my opinion that Scots MPs will be illegitimate after a 'Yes' vote.
And not just mine.
Fine so what are you saying? Suppose Osborne's next budget changes the VAT level from April. Are you saying that Scottish businesses should continue to operate under the old VAT level? So the UK basically operates on the basis that Scottish tax levels are fixed until such time as Independence is finalised? What if that takes years?
The legitimacy of Scottish MPs remains until such time as Scotland is Independent. If laws are passed in the interim which are still in place post independence then the new post independence parliament has the right to change them.
According to Jennifer Williams from Manchester Evening News Labour shortlist for Heywood and Middleton is:
Mariam O'Reilly (former BBC presenter, shortlisted for Nuneaton) Byron Taylor (TULO National Officer, longlisted for Stoke Central in 2010 but NEC didn't shortlist him) Liz McInnes (Rossendale Cllr) Kailash Chand (GP from Tameside, shortlisted for Stalybridgeand Hyde before 2010 GE)
Selection tomorrow (brought forward by 1 day compared to original timetable)
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
English MPs are already "banned" from voting on Scottish devolved matters.
Parliament is sovereign in UK. If it is the will of Parliament to 'ban' certain regional MPs from certain types of law-making then it can. This can, of course, be overturned by others in the future.
Unsurprisingly they didn't shortlist anybody linked with Rochdale Council at some point of their life. Rochdale Labour council group have also just come out from a leadership change. New leader is considered an ally of Rochdale MP while ousted leader worked in the office of Heywood MP.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
English MPs are already "banned" from voting on Scottish devolved matters.
Parliament is sovereign in UK. If it is the will of Parliament to 'ban' certain regional MPs from certain types of law-making then it can. This can, of course, be overturned by others in the future.
Well quite. The moment Labour got a majority it could pass a law overturning it. Or alternatively they could pork barrel "English" bills with matters affecting Scotland.
I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because: a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.
Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.
I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.
You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.
Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.
They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?
Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
We ARE going to cut your head off, we can do it now immediately after you say what we tell you. Or we can do it next week after we have tortured you to the point that you say what we tell you. Which choice would you opt for? These lunatics don't care which you pick, but you would, so which would you pick?
I'd make a run for it
Then they catch torture you and give you the same options. Then what?
I really don't know, its not much of a choice is it. I guess if I had been tortured Id say anything.
I agreed with @JosiasJessop last night to prevent the torture of his endless pinickity questions so Im not trying to be a brave keyboard warrior!
I wouldn't go anywhere near the middle east personally. Although its probably coming to me soon
Torture, fine (I don't agree, but fine). But no tears, no fear of imminent violent death? I'd be sobbing.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
You sound like you're in a total panic as reality slowly dawns as you realise what some 35% of Scottish Labour voters may be about to do to Labour in the rUK. The whole situation would be so funny if it wasn't for the fact that millions of ordinary folk in the whole of the UK face possibly years of economic hardship to satisfy the ego of one Scottish demagogue and the inane anti-tory prejudices of so many Scots Labour supporters.
You're absolutely right Felix. And the arrogance of Salmond knows no limits as he blithely suggests that half the population don't know their own mind, and then insults them by suggesting that they will at some stage realise the extent of their folly and become ardent supporters of his 'democratic?' regime.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
Neil, they can do what they want.
No, they cant. Taxes arent optional. Your suggestion that they should not be allowed a say on those taxes that they have to pay is ridiculous. Which is probably why you cant justify it.
Swissbob seems to be under the impression that Scotland becomes independent on 19th September rather than at the point of the passing of Act of Separation (or date contained within) at Westminster.
Poor show. Of course I understand the situation. It is my opinion that Scots MPs will be illegitimate after a 'Yes' vote.
And not just mine.
It is pretty unlikely that the Civil Service have not 'war gamed' this out and already have advice ready for the PM as to what to do next wrt to Scottish MPs. IMHO it will be that they continue as they are until Separation in 2016, or more likely late 2017. The UK has lived for years with the fabled West Lothian Question unanswered; a few more months will not matter to most people, once everyone has calmed down and refocussed on X-Factor/Strictly.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
You sound like you're in a total panic as reality slowly dawns as you realise what some 35% of Scottish Labour voters may be about to do to Labour in the rUK. The whole situation would be so funny if it wasn't for the fact that millions of ordinary folk in the whole of the UK face possibly years of economic hardship to satisfy the ego of one Scottish demagogue and the inane anti-tory prejudices of so many Scots Labour supporters.
You're absolutely right Felix. And the arrogance of Salmond knows no limits as he blithely suggests that half the population don't know their own mind, and then insults them by suggesting that they will at some stage realise the extent of their folly and become ardent supporters of his 'democratic?' regime.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
Neil, they can do what they want.
No, they cant. Taxes arent optional. Your suggestion that they should not be allowed a say on those taxes that they have to pay is ridiculous. Which is probably why you cant justify it.
Swissbob seems to be under the impression that Scotland becomes independent on 19th September rather than at the point of the passing of Act of Separation (or date contained within) at Westminster.
Poor show. Of course I understand the situation. It is my opinion that Scots MPs will be illegitimate after a 'Yes' vote.
And not just mine.
It is pretty unlikely that the Civil Service have not 'war gamed' this out and already have advice ready for the PM as to what to do next wrt to Scottish MPs. IMHO it will be that they continue as they are until Separation in 2016, or more likely late 2017. The UK has lived for years with the fabled West Lothian Question unanswered; a few more months will not matter to most people, once everyone has calmed down and refocussed on X-Factor/Strictly.
Would one not expect an 'informal' but real enough concordat of all parties, to make sure the Labour/LDs avoid breaching the WLQ? Just to encourage them not to be suicidal. The SNP and Tories are already sorted.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
Most countries don't have asymmetric devolution. All sub-units have the same powers and therefore so would their MPs. It would be interesting to know if there are an countries where some regions have greater autonomy than others (Spain? Italy?) and how this is reflected in the makeup of national parliaments.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
[snip] )
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
Neil, they can do what they want.
[snip]
Swissbob seems to be under the impression that Scotland becomes independent on 19th September rather than at the point of the passing of Act of Separation (or date contained within) at Westminster.
Poor show. Of course I understand the situation. It is my opinion that Scots MPs will be illegitimate after a 'Yes' vote.
And not just mine.
It is pretty unlikely that the Civil Service have not 'war gamed' this out and already have advice ready for the PM as to what to do next wrt to Scottish MPs. IMHO it will be that they continue as they are until Separation in 2016, or more likely late 2017. The UK has lived for years with the fabled West Lothian Question unanswered; a few more months will not matter to most people, once everyone has calmed down and refocussed on X-Factor/Strictly.
Would one not expect an 'informal' but real enough concordat of all parties, to make sure the Labour/LDs avoid breaching the WLQ? Just to encourage them not to be suicidal. The SNP and Tories are already sorted.
Possibly, but the stakes are raised when one reads in the Sunday Times that Osborne is gaming plans to block future Labour finance plans because they might rely on Scottish MPs to get their first couple of budgets through the House.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
I would want England to devolve as many powers as possible to approximately county level (Hampshire has just over half the population of Wales but subunits could be bigger or smaller). An English parliament could be (a) small (b) part-time (for example, the assemblies of most US states do not sit in continuous session) and (c) manage a few strategic and audit functions. However the appropriate authority to devolve power within England is England, not the UK government. What is needed is some sort of English constitutional convention, and I would also suggest there is not much rush, it should be able to consider the options in a leisurely manner.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
I would want England to devolve as many powers as possible to approximately county level (Hampshire has just over half the population of Wales but subunits could be bigger or smaller). An English parliament could be (a) small (b) part-time (for example, the assemblies of most US states do not sit in continuous session) and (c) manage a few strategic and audit functions. However the appropriate authority to devolve power within England is England, not the UK government. What is needed is some sort of English constitutional convention, and I would also suggest there is not much rush, it should be able to consider the options in a leisurely manner.
And of course once we have devolved power to England there is no need for the Westminster parliament to have more than 100-200 members.
Either way the end game for Scottish Labour with respect to their influence south of the border is already under way and there is really nothing that can stop it. The irony is that all this is entirely of their own making as they've encouraged the demonisation of the Tory brand in Scotland ever since Thatcher.
I don't know who the hippy Nat was that I just saw talking at the BBC Alba protest, but he has promised to personally open a Palestinian embassy in Edinburgh on the 19th. I wonder if he will...
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Isn't one of the main Tory arguments for FPTP that it prioritizes strong Govts over notional ideas of democratic fairness based on Parliament proportionally representing the votes of the electorate. The most fundamental criteria for a Govt is conventionally that it can pass a budget. In this context I don't see how they can justify supporting proposals which delink commanding a majority in the house from being able to pass a budget.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
I think Murdoch will come out for No but will stress the need for DevoMax. His recent tweets have been highly critical of Salmond's slavish attitude to the EU.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
I've had a butchers at Rupert's Twitter. I think he'll break for YES, but more importantly he seems to be enjoying the UK's self-inflicted immolation, LOL!
@felix It didn't take encouragement from the Labour party to make her hated, she managed well enough herself.
You're forgetting the 35% of Scottish Labour voters that may just be about to tip it for Salmond. I know it's an inconvenient truth but if Scotland votes Yes it will be on the backs of Scottish Labour voters.
@Alex -- Sounding ever more desperate as the reality dawns.
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
Indeed- if you were looking at his tweets today in isolation, you would probably think he was leaning NO. Agree that he will probably wait to see if he can pick a clear winner before deciding who to support.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
I've had a butchers at Rupert's Twitter. I think he'll break for YES, but more importantly he seems to be enjoying the UK's self-inflicted immolation, LOL!
Ha! Fair.
Reckon there should a market for Rupe declaring on the 19th..?! Might be worth a small punt
Isn't one of the main Tory arguments for FPTP that it prioritizes strong Govts over notional ideas of democratic fairness based on Parliament proportionally representing the votes of the electorate. The most fundamental criteria for a Govt is conventionally that it can pass a budget. In this context I don't see how they can justify supporting proposals which delink commanding a majority in the house from being able to pass a budget.
Hilarious - so the current Conservative majority should maybe have hired some Conservative MPs from France to avoid a coalition. that's the same as allowing foreign Scots Labour MPs vote here post indy. Rofl and LMFAO!!
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
I think Murdoch will come out for No but will stress the need for DevoMax. His recent tweets have been highly critical of Salmond's slavish attitude to the EU.
I thought Rupe was going to go a definite yes. His EU related comment was odd though which is why I reckon he'll try pick the winning side (in his mind).
@Bazowzer All things are possible, but at the moment the entire UK is in danger of "brown outs" if the winter is bad.
No it's not.
I've done this subject to death in the past. But in summary, there will not be brownouts - even in the most negative plausible scenarios - in the next five years.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
I would want England to devolve as many powers as possible to approximately county level (Hampshire has just over half the population of Wales but subunits could be bigger or smaller). An English parliament could be (a) small (b) part-time (for example, the assemblies of most US states do not sit in continuous session) and (c) manage a few strategic and audit functions. However the appropriate authority to devolve power within England is England, not the UK government. What is needed is some sort of English constitutional convention, and I would also suggest there is not much rush, it should be able to consider the options in a leisurely manner.
You may want that, I doubt the English as a whole would. A different "National" Health Service in every county? Thousands of new politicians? Incredibly expensive and a recipe for administrative deadlock and inaction.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murdoch is furious with Westminster: NOTW, select committee appearances, settlements, loss of money, status, his wife. Revenge might make him feel good. This is a big opportunity for him to kick the establishment squarely in the knackers.
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
@felix Yes, and not a lot will stop them voting yes. They rationalize it as, why should a "socialist country", have to put up with batshit insane neocons.
You may want that, I doubt the English as a whole would. A different "National" Health Service in every county? Thousands of new politicians? Incredibly expensive and a recipe for administrative deadlock and inaction.
The one thing the English will definitely not want is Scottish MPs voting in the H/C post indy. Take off the pink specs for a minute and you might just see why.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murdoch is furious with Westminster: NOTW, select committee appearances, settlements, loss of money, status, his wife. Revenge might make him feel good. This is a big opportunity for him to kick the establishment squarely in the knackers.
and then what does he do ?
No friends, no influence and a bunch of selfserving politicos happy to carve his empire up.
Isn't one of the main Tory arguments for FPTP that it prioritizes strong Govts over notional ideas of democratic fairness based on Parliament proportionally representing the votes of the electorate. The most fundamental criteria for a Govt is conventionally that it can pass a budget. In this context I don't see how they can justify supporting proposals which delink commanding a majority in the house from being able to pass a budget.
Hilarious - so the current Conservative majority should maybe have hired some Conservative MPs from France to avoid a coalition. that's the same as allowing foreign Scots Labour MPs vote here post indy. Rofl and LMFAO!!
??? Post Indy there is no issues. I'm talking about EV4EL.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
I think Murdoch will come out for No but will stress the need for DevoMax. His recent tweets have been highly critical of Salmond's slavish attitude to the EU.
I thought Rupe was going to go a definite yes. His EU related comment was odd though which is why I reckon he'll try pick the winning side (in his mind).
Rupert has cooled towards Eck as he's grown closer to Farage and UKIP.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murdoch is furious with Westminster: NOTW, select committee appearances, settlements, loss of money, status, his wife. Revenge might make him feel good. This is a big opportunity for him to kick the establishment squarely in the knackers.
and then what does he do ?
No friends, no influence and a bunch of selfserving politicos happy to carve his empire up.
media review ? We'll have 4 of those please.
I think that's why Rupe is taking his time. Weighing up the balance of power of his future relationships.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
So long as Rupert Murdoch requires the EU to approve the merger of BSkyB, Sky Italia, and Sky Deutscheland then his papers will not support UKIP.
After approval, I'd say it's more likely than not. Although, as he may want to buy Canal Plus in France next, financial considerations might be at the forefront of his mind.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
I think Murdoch will come out for No but will stress the need for DevoMax. His recent tweets have been highly critical of Salmond's slavish attitude to the EU.
I thought Rupe was going to go a definite yes. His EU related comment was odd though which is why I reckon he'll try pick the winning side (in his mind).
Rupert has cooled towards Eck as he's grown closer to Farage and UKIP.
Indeed. His most recent tweets would suggest his BBF 'Salmon' as he called him before is being replaced by Nigel UKIP.
@felix Yes, and not a lot will stop them voting yes. They rationalize it as, why should a "socialist country", have to put up with batshit insane neocons.
I think we've established pretty much that logic has left Scotland. So what's this about rationalisation ?
@felix Yes, and not a lot will stop them voting yes. They rationalize it as, why should a "socialist country", have to put up with batshit insane neocons.
Yes - and that is when 50 odd Labour seats disappear from the H/C for good and play at being socialists in Scotland - I'm fine with that although there'll be perhaps years of economic chaos both north and south in the meantime. I've got most of my money out of the UK thank heavens - a luxury denied the majority of hard-working people. Experience suggests that the well-off thrive under most circumstances - not so the poor who you claim to care about so much.
a - The Scots Yes-dupes stumble onto the reality after a Yes vote perhaps helped by the English starting to act on the inevitable consequences. b - Parties run for the next Holyrood Election on a platform of a new referendum after an informed debate.
Isn't one of the main Tory arguments for FPTP that it prioritizes strong Govts over notional ideas of democratic fairness based on Parliament proportionally representing the votes of the electorate. The most fundamental criteria for a Govt is conventionally that it can pass a budget. In this context I don't see how they can justify supporting proposals which delink commanding a majority in the house from being able to pass a budget.
Hilarious - so the current Conservative majority should maybe have hired some Conservative MPs from France to avoid a coalition. that's the same as allowing foreign Scots Labour MPs vote here post indy. Rofl and LMFAO!!
??? Post Indy there is no issues. I'm talking about EV4EL.
Hmm - so do you think Scottish MPs should continue to vote on English matters or not - that's pretty well what you seemed to be saying. After a yes vote they would have no legitimacy at all to continue to do so.
@Alanbrooke If you want a country run by big money, and vested interests then fine. Others think a country should be run for it's people. Where the balance lies is seen differently in Scotland, and parts of England.
@Alanbrooke If you want a country run by big money, and vested interests then fine. Others think a country should be run for it's people. Where the balance lies is seen differently in Scotland, and parts of England.
I forgot big business will not be allowed in the new Scotland - wonder who'll be paying for education, health, social services, police, civil service...........
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
@Alanbrooke If you want a country run by big money, and vested interests then fine. Others think a country should be run for it's people. Where the balance lies is seen differently in Scotland, and parts of England.
What total self serving tosh.
There are more than enough people in the UK who happily push for change. Whereas a plutocrat groupie like Salmond will only pursue more of what you claim you dislike.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murdoch is furious with Westminster: NOTW, select committee appearances, settlements, loss of money, status, his wife. Revenge might make him feel good. This is a big opportunity for him to kick the establishment squarely in the knackers.
and then what does he do ?
No friends, no influence and a bunch of selfserving politicos happy to carve his empire up.
media review ? We'll have 4 of those please.
I take your point about RM always staying on the side of those in power: the Sun's monstering of Fagage at the Euros was a favour to the gov't.
But what's his flirtation with Salmond all about then? Is he just making friends with a potential new media regulator? I think there's more to it than that. Especially given that he also met Farage recently. He's publicly making friends with Westminster's enemies.
Isn't one of the main Tory arguments for FPTP that it prioritizes strong Govts over notional ideas of democratic fairness based on Parliament proportionally representing the votes of the electorate. The most fundamental criteria for a Govt is conventionally that it can pass a budget. In this context I don't see how they can justify supporting proposals which delink commanding a majority in the house from being able to pass a budget.
Hilarious - so the current Conservative majority should maybe have hired some Conservative MPs from France to avoid a coalition. that's the same as allowing foreign Scots Labour MPs vote here post indy. Rofl and LMFAO!!
??? Post Indy there is no issues. I'm talking about EV4EL.
Hmm - so do you think Scottish MPs should continue to vote on English matters or not - that's pretty well what you seemed to be saying. After a yes vote they would have no legitimacy at all to continue to do so.
They would have no less legitimacy than they have at the moment. Until the date of Independence there would be no laws which apply to their constituents which do not apply to others (apart from currently devolved matters but a yes vote would change nothing in relation to those). Once independence actually occurs and the MPs leave the new post Indy Parliament would be free to overturn any laws passed in the interim.
@Alanbrooke If you want a country run by big money, and vested interests then fine. Others think a country should be run for it's people. Where the balance lies is seen differently in Scotland, and parts of England.
Remember that Salmond's government was the mere plaything of Ineos last year.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
It can be really simple.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
@felix Yes, and not a lot will stop them voting yes. They rationalize it as, why should a "socialist country", have to put up with batshit insane neocons.
Yes - and that is when 50 odd Labour seats disappear from the H/C for good and play at being socialists in Scotland - I'm fine with that although there'll be perhaps years of economic chaos both north and south in the meantime. I've got most of my money out of the UK thank heavens - a luxury denied the majority of hard-working people. Experience suggests that the well-off thrive under most circumstances - not so the poor who you claim to care about so much.
Where the balance lies is seen differently in Scotland, and parts of England.
All successful and prosperous countries run on one thing. A large and flourishing private sector. It is that, and that alone, that creates wealth. There is nothing else.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murdoch is furious with Westminster: NOTW, select committee appearances, settlements, loss of money, status, his wife. Revenge might make him feel good. This is a big opportunity for him to kick the establishment squarely in the knackers.
and then what does he do ?
No friends, no influence and a bunch of selfserving politicos happy to carve his empire up.
media review ? We'll have 4 of those please.
I take your point about RM always staying on the side of those in power: the Sun's monstering of Fagage at the Euros was a favour to the gov't.
But what's his flirtation with Salmond all about then? Is he just making friends with a potential new media regulator? I think there's more to it than that. Especially given that he also met Farage recently. He's publicly making friends with Westminster's enemies.
IMO he's been hedging his bets to remind UK establishment of his "influence" and sucking up to Salmond in case it is a yes and then to claim a few favours.
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
I can see the EU backing down on Schengen so there's a separate Schengen for Scotland-Ireland-UK. I can see that being acceptable to them. What they won't do is back down on the Euro membership.
Three things: 3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Cameron says today:
There is no option of keeping our heads down that would make us safe. The problem would merely get worse, as it has done over recent months. Not just for us, but for Europe and for the world.
We cannot just walk on by if we are to keep this country safe. We have to confront this menace.
Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for.
Are you saying that should this aim be achieved, Cameron should nonetheless be condemned for not having labelled ISIL as Muslim?
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
So long as Rupert Murdoch requires the EU to approve the merger of BSkyB, Sky Italia, and Sky Deutscheland then his papers will not support UKIP.
After approval, I'd say it's more likely than not. Although, as he may want to buy Canal Plus in France next, financial considerations might be at the forefront of his mind.
What a complicated life he leads. I didn't realise he had all that going on as well...
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
I can see the EU backing down on Schengen so there's a separate Schengen for Scotland-Ireland-UK. I can see that being acceptable to them. What they won't do is back down on the Euro membership.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
It can be really simple.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
Defence, foreign affairs, all of them can vote.
Why's that difficult?
How do you define an English only bill? What if the Govt decides to Pork barrel in some non-english clauses. What happens if there is a Welsh only bill in the House of Commons?
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
It can be really simple.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
Defence, foreign affairs, all of them can vote.
Why's that difficult?
How do you define an English only bill? What if the Govt decides to Pork barrel in some non-english clauses. What happens if there is a Welsh only bill in the House of Commons?
Easy. All MP's vote to decide if it is an English only bill. Problem fixed....
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
I can see the EU backing down on Schengen so there's a separate Schengen for Scotland-Ireland-UK. I can see that being acceptable to them. What they won't do is back down on the Euro membership.
add the Social Chapter to that.
We don't have a social chapter opt-out. Blair got rid of it.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
It can be really simple.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
Defence, foreign affairs, all of them can vote.
Why's that difficult?
Because most issues cross the boundary between Scotland and England. Education policy is decided in Holyrood... Except in areas like university funding where it is across the UK.
Almost all devolved areas still have significant influence from Westminster
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
On 1., part of me thinks ol' Rupe is fence sitting, weighing up the winning side and declaring support for them. His tweets are often conflicting.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murdoch is furious with Westminster: NOTW, select committee appearances, settlements, loss of money, status, his wife. Revenge might make him feel good. This is a big opportunity for him to kick the establishment squarely in the knackers.
and then what does he do ?
No friends, no influence and a bunch of selfserving politicos happy to carve his empire up.
media review ? We'll have 4 of those please.
I take your point about RM always staying on the side of those in power: the Sun's monstering of Fagage at the Euros was a favour to the gov't.
But what's his flirtation with Salmond all about then? Is he just making friends with a potential new media regulator? I think there's more to it than that. Especially given that he also met Farage recently. He's publicly making friends with Westminster's enemies.
IMO he's been hedging his bets to remind UK establishment of his "influence" and sucking up to Salmond in case it is a yes and then to claim a few favours.
I see, and agree. I think that sounds about right.
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
I can see the EU backing down on Schengen so there's a separate Schengen for Scotland-Ireland-UK. I can see that being acceptable to them. What they won't do is back down on the Euro membership.
add the Social Chapter to that.
We don't have a social chapter opt-out. Blair got rid of it.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
It can be really simple.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
Defence, foreign affairs, all of them can vote.
Why's that difficult?
How do you define an English only bill? What if the Govt decides to Pork barrel in some non-english clauses. What happens if there is a Welsh only bill in the House of Commons?
Easy. All MP's vote to decide if it is an English only bill. Problem fixed....
Eh? How's that going to cause a problem for a Labour Govt backed by Scottish MPs? If Labour English MPs are in favour of a bill they are hardly going to vote away their majority to pass it by declaring it "English"!
Where the balance lies is seen differently in Scotland, and parts of England.
All successful and prosperous countries run on one thing. A large and flourishing private sector. It is that, and that alone, that creates wealth. There is nothing else.
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
There is zero support for a balkanised England, I'm Cornish, which is the most likely area to "secede" and support for Cornish independence is probably about 2%. A bit more devolution, yes, but indy - nonsense.
Westminster is our English parliament and has been for 1000 years and this is not going to change. Whether Scots Labour MPs leave it in 2015 or 2016 is moot, but they will leave, only attending for Federal questions - or not at all.
I suspect that if Scotland does go indy we will just carry on with FUK as it is now. The influence of Welsh and Ulster MPs is so negligible it won't bother the English that Devolution is asymmetric. I also suspect that after a YES Scots Labour MPs will come under irresistible pressure not to vote on English affairs. Some might succumb, some will resist to the bitter end.
The Tories will of course make Ed Miliband try and use those MPs, to embarrass and damage him politically. Labour are headed for implosion after a YES vote.
Is there no Primrose Hill independence movement? After all, Monaco is less than a square mile.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.
An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
It can be really simple.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
Defence, foreign affairs, all of them can vote.
Why's that difficult?
That isn't difficult, Mr. Saddo, but you have missed out the biggest, issue:
@Alanbrooke If you want a country run by big money, and vested interests then fine. Others think a country should be run for it's people. Where the balance lies is seen differently in Scotland, and parts of England.
I forgot big business will not be allowed in the new Scotland - wonder who'll be paying for education, health, social services, police, civil service...........
Scotland will be the ultimate Big Society - everything will be done by volunteers.
Although, with no-one having jobs, they will have plenty of time on their hands. Perhaps they could also initiate something like the Totnes Pound, where goods are bartered for services... Problem with what currency to use sorted!
''I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws'' Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It's far too messy to have MPs who can vote on some issues but not on others.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
If you think the English are going to accept being carved up you can Foxtrot Oscar with that EU rubbish.
There is zero support for a balkanised England, I'm Cornish, which is the most likely area to "secede" and support for Cornish independence is probably about 2%. A bit more devolution, yes, but indy - nonsense.
Westminster is our English parliament and has been for 1000 years and this is not going to change. Whether Scots Labour MPs leave it in 2015 or 2016 is moot, but they will leave, only attending for Federal questions - or not at all.
I suspect that if Scotland does go indy we will just carry on with FUK as it is now. The influence of Welsh and Ulster MPs is so negligible it won't bother the English that Devolution is asymmetric. I also suspect that after a YES Scots Labour MPs will come under irresistible pressure not to vote on English affairs. Some might succumb, some will resist to the bitter end.
The Tories will of course make Ed Miliband try and use those MPs, to embarrass and damage him politically. Labour are headed for implosion after a YES vote.
Agreed. Labour were handed their arse on this subject.
There are also sufficient people that are well aware that this is a project of the EU and the enemies of the UK, whom are lapping up the current referendum. If England broke into regions they would see it as job done.
"Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland. Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid". In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
Yes, the NO campaign hasn't made nearly enough of this.
If you vote NO there is a risk, fairly slight, that the UK will get a vote to leave the EU in 2017 (if Cameron gets a majority!) and then vote out. It's really very improbable, about a 2% chance, but it might just happen.
If you vote YES then you are out of the EU. 100% chance. Certainty. By 2016.
Scotland would be out of the EU but desperate to get back in without any of the safeguards that we have already negotiated. We are not in the Euro and its clear that under Cameron we will not be. Furthermore as a new entrant it would be in Schengen or not at all.
I can see the EU backing down on Schengen so there's a separate Schengen for Scotland-Ireland-UK. I can see that being acceptable to them. What they won't do is back down on the Euro membership.
add the Social Chapter to that.
We don't have a social chapter opt-out. Blair got rid of it.
another Labour success.
But we get all that valuable stuff for it in return. Unlike Cameron, who has "isolated" himself, Blair was fully engaged in Labour, opting into stuff and unilaterally upping our contribution. There's surely reams to show for it, right?
Three things: 3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
Cameron says today:
There is no option of keeping our heads down that would make us safe. The problem would merely get worse, as it has done over recent months. Not just for us, but for Europe and for the world.
We cannot just walk on by if we are to keep this country safe. We have to confront this menace.
Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for.
Are you saying that should this aim be achieved, Cameron should nonetheless be condemned for not having labelled ISIL as Muslim?
The quote that's doing the rounds today from Cameron on ISIS is this one: "They are not Muslims, they are monsters."
My point is that they are Muslims if they say they are, and it is not for Cameron to deny it. It's the same false logic that gets used in this country to decry football supporters who behave in a way that does not please the authorities: time and again we hear "they are not real football supporters. They are hooligans." It's a false dichotomy. People can be BOTH monsters and Muslim in the same way they can be football supporters and hooligans.
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
They become part of an independent Scotland if it's a 'yes'.
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
It is looking like a supermajority (Borders) will be No. But I expect the SNP will say that self determination within the UK is all dandy, just not within Scotland.
Unless things change we can presume that they will be in iScotland.
You may want that, I doubt the English as a whole would. A different "National" Health Service in every county? Thousands of new politicians? Incredibly expensive and a recipe for administrative deadlock and inaction.
The one thing the English will definitely not want is Scottish MPs voting in the H/C post indy. Take off the pink specs for a minute and you might just see why.
The other thing the English definitely will not want is.in the event of no and Max devo,is Scottish Mp,s voting on English matters-hence Max Devo for English too.
On topic thought Darlings performance poor.To admit that there is not yet total agreement between the three parties on new powers is hardly a way of selling Max Devo as an alternative to a yes vote
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
They become part of an independent Scotland if it's a 'yes'.
I thought the Nat argument was why do you want to be stuck with a load of people who don't want to be part of you ? ;-)
If the Borders vote overwhelming in favour of remaining part of the UK (say 75+%), and then elect anti SNP, stay with the UK, mps in 2015, what happens then?
Have another referendum about what those counties wish to do.
Ming Campbell talking about how Scotland will get new powers in a No vote "and that will surely be matched by new powers for the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland assembly".
Ming Campbell talking about how Scotland will get new powers in a No vote "and that will surely be matched by new powers for the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland assembly".
Comments
All things are possible, but at the moment the entire UK is in danger of "brown outs" if the winter is bad.
Scots MPs would have no legitimacy, the rest is just quibbling.
And not just mine.
Mariam O'Reilly (former BBC presenter, shortlisted for Nuneaton)
Byron Taylor (TULO National Officer, longlisted for Stoke Central in 2010 but NEC didn't shortlist him)
Liz McInnes (Rossendale Cllr)
Kailash Chand (GP from Tameside, shortlisted for Stalybridgeand Hyde before 2010 GE)
Selection tomorrow (brought forward by 1 day compared to original timetable)
The legitimacy of Scottish MPs remains until such time as Scotland is Independent. If laws are passed in the interim which are still in place post independence then the new post independence parliament has the right to change them.
1. Giving Murdoch's recent tweets I'd be surprised if the Scottish Sun doesn't come out for Yes. I'd guess a late, bandwagonesque endorsement is worth about 0.25% to Yes.
2. I think it's now more likely the English Sun will back UKIP at the next GE which, were it to happen, would be a major coup for UKIP - got to be worth 2-3 percent.
3. I wish Cameron would stop saying ISIS aren't Muslims. They clearly are, and saying they're not doesn't fool anyone. Our politicians should address Islam head on and stop playing word games.
"You Will Conform."
If the alternative is civil war, we will probably muddle a compromise. Ardent? possibly not so much
Are you aware of any parliaments in the whole world which allow people to vote on say one part of that country's health service but not on that part the health service operating in their own constituency. As such they can vote without baring any responsibility back to their own constituents.
It didn't take encouragement from the Labour party to make her hated, she managed well enough herself.
Half expect a deceleration... On Friday the 19th!
The joke writes itself.
Scottish Labour voters.
@Alex -- Sounding ever more desperate as the reality dawns.
The only solution is to have "home rule all round". If you do that with an English Parliament then the end result is probably an independent England and the end of the Union. If you do that for English regions: Yorkshire, Mercia, Wessex, Cornwall, etc, then you have some chance of preserving the Unioin - or what is left of it at the end of next week.
Reckon there should a market for Rupe declaring on the 19th..?! Might be worth a small punt
I've done this subject to death in the past. But in summary, there will not be brownouts - even in the most negative plausible scenarios - in the next five years.
The Rossendale woman works as Clinical Scientist for NHS.
Yes, and not a lot will stop them voting yes. They rationalize it as, why should a "socialist country", have to put up with batshit insane neocons.
You may want that, I doubt the English as a whole would. A different "National" Health Service in every county? Thousands of new politicians? Incredibly expensive and a recipe for administrative deadlock and inaction.
The one thing the English will definitely not want is Scottish MPs voting in the H/C post indy. Take off the pink specs for a minute and you might just see why.
No friends, no influence and a bunch of selfserving politicos happy to carve his empire up.
media review ? We'll have 4 of those please.
After approval, I'd say it's more likely than not. Although, as he may want to buy Canal Plus in France next, financial considerations might be at the forefront of his mind.
It's an interesting sideshow.
Wondering about the result if:
a - The Scots Yes-dupes stumble onto the reality after a Yes vote perhaps helped by the English starting to act on the inevitable consequences.
b - Parties run for the next Holyrood Election on a platform of a new referendum after an informed debate.
If you want a country run by big money, and vested interests then fine.
Others think a country should be run for it's people.
Where the balance lies is seen differently in Scotland, and parts of England.
There are more than enough people in the UK who happily push for change. Whereas a plutocrat groupie like Salmond will only pursue more of what you claim you dislike.
But what's his flirtation with Salmond all about then? Is he just making friends with a potential new media regulator? I think there's more to it than that. Especially given that he also met Farage recently. He's publicly making friends with Westminster's enemies.
England only issues, only English MP's can vote, sit on committees, be ministers.
Defence, foreign affairs, all of them can vote.
Why's that difficult?
All successful and prosperous countries run on one thing. A large and flourishing private sector. It is that, and that alone, that creates wealth. There is nothing else.
There is no option of keeping our heads down that would make us safe. The problem would merely get worse, as it has done over recent months. Not just for us, but for Europe and for the world.
We cannot just walk on by if we are to keep this country safe. We have to confront this menace.
Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for.
Are you saying that should this aim be achieved, Cameron should nonetheless be condemned for not having labelled ISIL as Muslim?
Almost all devolved areas still have significant influence from Westminster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q
They maybe used our city because some US citizens might have heard of it.
Although, with no-one having jobs, they will have plenty of time on their hands. Perhaps they could also initiate something like the Totnes Pound, where goods are bartered for services... Problem with what currency to use sorted!
There are also sufficient people that are well aware that this is a project of the EU and the enemies of the UK, whom are lapping up the current referendum. If England broke into regions they would see it as job done.
It is not something I'll let pass.
My point is that they are Muslims if they say they are, and it is not for Cameron to deny it. It's the same false logic that gets used in this country to decry football supporters who behave in a way that does not please the authorities: time and again we hear "they are not real football supporters. They are hooligans." It's a false dichotomy. People can be BOTH monsters and Muslim in the same way they can be football supporters and hooligans.
Unless things change we can presume that they will be in iScotland.
The one thing the English will definitely not want is Scottish MPs voting in the H/C post indy. Take off the pink specs for a minute and you might just see why.
The other thing the English definitely will not want is.in the event of no and Max devo,is Scottish Mp,s voting on English matters-hence Max Devo for English too.
On topic thought Darlings performance poor.To admit that there is not yet total agreement between the three parties on new powers is hardly a way of selling Max Devo as an alternative to a yes vote
WHAT ABOUT ENGLAND?